However, a closer and critical examination of PTM’s trajectory reveals how this movement has diverged significantly from its original mission and increasingly become intertwined with complex ethnic politics, foreign agendas, and narratives that undermine Pakistan’s sovereignty and unity.
The PTM began by drawing attention to genuine human rights concerns and demanding accountability within Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts. However, over time, under the leadership of Manzoor Pashteen, its narrative shifted toward a divisive ethnic discourse that portrays the violence and unrest in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa as the “deliberate targeting of Pashtuns by a Punjabi-dominated state”. This simplistic framing overlooks the reality that K-P’s security challenges arise primarily from its strategic, porous border with Afghanistan — a region that has long served as a launchpad for insurgents and terrorists attacking all parts of Pakistan.
PTM’s focus on ethnic victimhood ignores the fact that Pashtuns are deeply embedded in Pakistan’s military and political institutions and play a crucial role in defending the nation’s security. By pushing this selective ethnic narrative, PTM not only misrepresents the complex security dynamics but also undermines national unity and fosters ethnic mistrust, unintentionally advancing the interests of those seeking to destabilize Pakistan.
PTM’s growing detachment from Pakistan’s domestic political landscape is evident in its increasing reliance on foreign platforms and alliances. The 2025 “Texas Jirga”, held under Afghanistan’s national flag and dominated by Afghan nationals rather than Pakistani citizens, exemplifies this concerning trend. It raises a critical question: how does internationalising internal ethnic grievances truly serve the interests and welfare of Pashtuns residing within Pakistan?
Similarly, the PTM claims to stand for the security and well-being of Pashtun communities, yet their actions often raise questions about the sincerity of this commitment. Despite the ongoing violence that affects these areas, the movement has been notably silent or ambiguous when it comes to condemning militant groups like the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan who have inflicted significant harm on Pashtuns and the wider Pakistani society.
Furthermore, the group’s persistent rejection of established borders such as the Durand Line – recognised internationally as Pakistan’s frontier with Afghanistan, raises serious concerns about their allegiance to the country.
If Pakistan is indeed their homeland, then why do they seek to challenge its constitutional framework and national sovereignty?
Such contradictions suggest that PTM’s agenda may extend beyond advocating for rights and venture into undermining the very unity and stability of the state.
At the heart of PTM’s narrative lies a consistent targeting of Pakistan’s military, accusing it of exploiting Pashtun communities for strategic gains. This focus overlooks a crucial reality: Pashtuns have historically played a vital role within the military and security forces, standing alongside fellow citizens in defence of the nation. Despite this, PTM paints a one-sided picture, blaming the military entirely for the suffering experienced in Pashtun areas while ignoring the persistent threats from militant groups operating across the border.
The continued support of local Pashtun tribes for the country’s security forces underlines a reality at odds with PTM’s divisive rhetoric. True advancement for Pashtun rights and welfare will come from rejecting separatism, engaging in meaningful dialogue within Pakistan’s democratic framework and standing united against terrorism and instability.
This raises a critical question: is the movement truly championing Pashtun welfare, or has it become a vehicle for division that undermines the very unity it claims to seek?
The Pashtun community’s significant role in Pakistan’s defence and nation-building is indisputable, and their genuine grievances deserve address through constructive and constitutional means.
The merger of FATA into K-P should also be given serious reconsideration. While it was intended to integrate the tribal areas into mainstream governance and improve the lives of Pashtuns, the reality falls short of the promises made. Many grievances stemming from the merger remains unaddressed, and the envisioned integration and development have yet to materialise fully. This lag has contributed to frustration and disillusionment among Pashtun communities, underscoring the need for the government and stakeholders to revisit the merger’s implementation with renewed commitment to fulfil its original goals.
However, PTM’s recent shift toward ethnic polarisation, coupled with external influences and challenges to Pakistan’s sovereignty, risks deepening divisions rather than fostering progress.
Only through such a united approach can long-term peace, development, and justice for Pashtuns be achieved without jeopardising national cohesion.